|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Mystery Worshipper
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
This is only a suggestion and nothing more - neither a criticism of anything recent or past nor how it is done. I like the MW very much and enjoy it. I do wonder if a small 'fail safe', if you like, might be added to the reports.
We all know that people arrive at churches with their own particular baggage and expectations and that sometimes (rarely), some arrive with an agenda on the back of a gripe or having a particular axe to grind. It's a sad fact of church life. As it stands the MW format can sometimes allow a gripe or an axe to slip through the net which in effect means that it isn't a MW report at all, but rather an opportunity to go on the attack. I know that Miss Amanda is very good about withdrawing reports or not publishing reports that fall into this category, but the job might be made a little easier with a small addition.
The MW report asks the reporter to grade the parish. I must confess, it can be a bit of fun, but personally it's the one aspect that makes me uneasy in reading reports, especially if the tradition is not the MW's own and one they find hard to relate to. I wonder if it might be possible to split it, so that there would be a grading on its own merits (with explanation) and a grading on the reporters own feelings (with explanation). It may also make the MW reflect on the service in different ways and of their experience of it.
It may be that such an addition to the report makes no difference whatsoever, but I did wonder if it might introduce something that would make the task of weeding out the rare 'axe grinders' a little easier and the genuine MW's a little more broad in perspective and all the more richer to read for it.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
An interesting suggestion, that in principle I might agree with. In practice, I am not sure how one could distinguish between a view of the service as it stands, and ones own reactions to it.
I am low church evo (I think sitting around a table in a pub is rather formal for my liking). I am not sure how I could assess a service that was more traditionalist on its own merits, in a way that was not about my own feelings and responses to it. "They processed down the aisle without tripping over" might be all I can say, whereas in its own context, they may have been worrying that they were missing a flag-waver, something that is normally integral to their procession*.
And even within the tradition I know, it is my experience of the service that is of significance. It is not about whether the right songs were sung or suchlike - a service is "good" if people feel engaged with it and through it with God.
I am not dismissing the idea, just wanting to throw some consideration of how it could work practically.
*I have no idea. just an example.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by Schrodinger's Cat:
quote:
An interesting suggestion, that in principle I might agree with. In practice, I am not sure how one could distinguish between a view of the service as it stands, and ones own reactions to it.
'Practicalities' may indeed be where it falls down. I was thinking it might run something like this:
MW'ed church: Con Evo in a school hall with a 45 minute sermon
MW'ers own tradition: So high it makes the Orthodox look low.
Scores
Personal response: 3/10. Really not my thing; couldn't feel comfortable
As a church: 8/10. People were friendly and engaged; could have done a tweak on x and y and possibly done z a little better.
Or.....
MW'ed church: Baptist church
MW'ers own tradition: Charismatic non denom.
Personal response: 5/10. Some dull sections of the service and praise was a bit dull for me. Sermon too pedestrian for my taste.
As a church: 9/10. Big congo doing work in lots of areas. People took notes during long sermon. Bun fight wasn't like a riot in a football ground.
Perhaps it would make it too complex and not actually introduce any kind of fail safe, I don't know. I just thought it might be worth a bit of thought and discussion.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
If anything, I would get rid of both the areas where we mark out of 10 and stick solely to a qualitative assessment.
Generally, a worshipper should stick to the maxim "Don't be an arsehole". If an honest self-reflection shows that you are being critical because they do things differently from how you are used to then don't submit it. If it's different and you simply note that it's different, why you find it different and what positives you could find, then surely that's reasonable?
When reading some reports I get annoyed when there is reference to doing things the right or proper way, as though there is some prescription for how church should be. If this kind of snooty attitude could be cut out, then that would make some more enjoyable to read.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
as though there is some prescription for how church should be.
Well, there is, you know. They're called rubrics. And the baby Jesus and his Blessed Mother cry aspergillums full of tears when they are not followed.
I have suggested that the question re making the church your regular be reworded as: "If you could, how likely would you be to return to this church?"
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Well, there is, you know. They're called rubrics. And the baby Jesus and his Blessed Mother cry aspergillums full of tears when they are not followed.
Yes and no, If an MWer is (say) an Orthodox and goes to a church where the rubrics are not followed, then s/he can certainly point that out. But it would be silly to go to (say) a Methodist church and then complain that "they do it wrong" if they are following the legitimate Methodist polity.
Even within denominations there is a huge variety of what is permissible. In my own denomination we have everything from "high" Baptists with gowns and a robed choir to happy-clappy charismatics: we may prefer one or the other but we can't say that either is wrong. Equally, it is easy for an Anglo-Catholic to go to a ConEvo church and moan about it; but, providing that church follows the minimum of the rubrics and doesn't disobey Canon Law, there are no grounds for complaint.
In any case, all traditions change the way they do things over time - even if they insist that they don't!
ISTM that this is what Sipech is saying.
[ 30. October 2015, 14:35: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
Sort of.
It's the idea that one denomination knows how do things right and all others are either getting it wrong or missing something in one way or another.
I grew up in an FIEC baptist church singing the hymns of Charles Wesley and Timothy Dudley-Smith, with 40-50 minute sermons. But if I go to a Quaker service it might be worth noting that there's no sermon and no singing (in case someone didn't know that), but in my view it would be wrong to hint in any way that they're way is inferior to another; certainly as a visitor where I am seeing a mere hour or two of a community that has been knit together for years.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
Which I think was sort of my point. The problem with the rubrics is that they are so general that churches can follow them in principle, while not being entirely within how others may interpret the rules.
The thing is, I may normally attend a church of the One and Only Amanda denomination, where we have no processions because they are not mandated in the rules. I may then visit another church of the One and Only Amanda where they have a procession, and not notice that they are missing their flag-waver, because it has never crossed my mind, and I have never looked into the rubrics which say "where there is a procession, there shall be a flag-waver".
Believe me, from the low end of the CofE, I know just how much the rules can be stretched. In truth, it is very rare that they are actually broken, merely interpreted in a non-standard way sometimes. The examples you give are actually personal responses - x y and z could be tweaked. Maybe they have never done x and y before and they have worked out a way that z is appropriate for their congregation (but is unusual). In which case they may have been doing them all remarkably well.
I just think it takes more than a single visit to understand why they do this like they do. I can respond in terms of "I like that" or "I wish they did that 'properly'", but to understand why needs a discussion and far more engagement, IMO.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lincoln Imp
Apprentice
# 17123
|
Posted
When my vicar found out (I actually mentioned it to him) that I MW he accused me of reviewing one of his mates and rating him with a 1. I was really angry, because I take great care with my visits and reports, and had never been near that particular place. I think it showed clearly why we need the MW: the clergy take themselves too seriously. They glow and will quote a report when you rate them highly, or if you tell them at the door how wonderful their sermon was (even if it was straight off the internet), but accuse of of hostility if you found it repetitive, dull or meaningless. We all like praise and react badly to criticism.
I find the reports usually balanced, and my own experience is that when you went to a place where the worship/ church/ congregation was such that you would not rate it above a 5 you go back and give them another try, sometimes many times to make sure it is not your agenda or expectation that drives the report, but an honest assessment of your own reaction to what was offered: praise to God. Did it make you glad to be a Christian?
However, the reality is that the style/ music/ people etc. can be a huge barrier to worship for people. One size does not fit all. I don't think we need another rating system.
--------------------
There lives more faith in honest doubt, believe me, than in half the creeds. (Tennyson)
Posts: 30 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
luvanddaisies
the'fun'in'fundie'™
# 5761
|
Posted
this article made me think of MW reports in general, and of this discussion in particular. For the writer, all the elements seemed to be there, but that church didn't click for her or her friend because of the lack of friendliness from the individual people. It actually covers a lot of the areas that a MW report would, which. I thought was quite interesting.
--------------------
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." (Mark Twain)
Posts: 3711 | From: all at sea. | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln Imp:
When my vicar found out (I actually mentioned it to him) that I MW he accused me of reviewing one of his mates and rating him with a 1. I was really angry, because I take great care with my visits and reports, and had never been near that particular place.
It's true that many churches don't like being Mystery Worshipped. I have been accused of being a Mystery Worshipper because it was known I was a Host. (I am not and never have been a MWer and had to explain that Hosts have a completely different function, even though they volunteer for the same overall group.) It made me wonder, however, how the MW experience could be made more helpful rather than being seen as a destructive criticism - rather like schools would prefer constructive advice rather than destructive inspections.
However, there may also be a mismatch between perception and reality - MWers are by no means official inspectors and are only offering one personal opinion among many. Churches are hardly going to rise or fall due to one person's bad experience. Ministers and congregations, while taking notice of what individuals have to say, really need not suffer excessive anxiety.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I dread the arrival of the MWer ... because I know that it's bound to be the day when half the choir is away, I drop my notes all over the carpet, the best stewards are on holiday, the coffee-maker goes on the blink, the organ develops a cypher, the hymn numbers on the service sheet are wrong, the heating fails, we get a strange whistle over the PA ... It's bound to be.
More seriously, I think there are two issues with the MW. One is the one we've often mentioned: that they go to a church whose tradition they don't like or understand, and then moan about everything. That's just silly and calls the whole enterprise into question.
The other is if the MWer decides to vaunt their cleverness rather than critique the service. This used to happen at "sermon class" in my theological college, which eventually had to be suspended because the designated Critics became more fond of gilding their reputations than honestly evaluating the service and helping the person who'd led it.
[ 10. November 2015, 13:07: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
My idea is that the MW is the man in the pew. Not clergy, not a theologian or a liturgist. Just tasting the coffee, shivering in the drafts, being a bottom-level reporter.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
a bottom-level reporter.
Checking the spiritual calibre of 'our souls' do you mean?
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
The idea (as I understand it) is to mimic exactly how a casual visitor might feel. If they don't like what you are doing... well, maybe that is their problem. Maybe it is yours. Either way, you need to be aware that this is how some visitors are actually likely to react.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
a bottom-level reporter.
Checking the spiritual calibre of 'our souls' do you mean?
No, the height of the seating.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
I was actually thinking of totem poles. Or pyramids. What in political circles are called the lower-level munchkins.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
